unreported crime rates exist for other categories than rape and sexual assult
…but no one tries to use them when calculating conviction rates, because they’re vague estimates rather than any kind of hard number and everyone properly understands in every other case that law enforcement can’t even hypothetically do anything about an unreported crime.
It’s not jail, it’s school exclusion. It happens all the time over far less serious behaviour than rape.
Are you college aged or older? Do you have student loans? Now, imagine you have all those student loans, but you have no degree and a dramatically harder time moving to another school (for which you’d have to take out further student loans if you manage to get in) because the previous school says why you were expelled when asked.
If it were just “go to another school” with that being the full extent of the consequences, that would be one thing but it’s really not.
Also, under the Devos rules supporting actions can be taken to make things easier for the accuser in response to the accusation alone (before any hearing, finding or even investigation), but those actions cannot be unreasonable, punitive or deny access to education (for example changing class schedules for one or both, changing housing assignments, or other things to prevent contact between them).
victim-blaming victim-shaming shit
So, no one can question or challenge any part of an accusation in any way? Or do you have some (likely media fueled) image in your mind that the guidelines allow for the accused or his lawyer to grill the accuser, shouting irrelevant questions at her until she breaks down and submits? Because what the Devos guidelines actually call for for cross-examination is that all questions have to be submitted to the judge-analog (typically Title IX coordinator, but can be delegated) who is supposed to decide if the question is relevant or not to the accusation and the question can only be asked if it’s approved. If she’s a slutty slut slut is unlikely to be considered relevant, as is what she was wearing unless an article of clothing is somehow central to the evidence.
Question: In your ideal world, what would the process look like? Start from when it’s reported (unless you don’t think it should need to be reported, in which I want to know how the school is supposed to know) and go all the way through to a finding and punishment.
But that is in no uncertain terms what you mean by victim-shaming and I’m actively avoiding dancing around it. That is precisely the kind of question the Devos 2018 guidelines are specifically meant to avoid by requiring any questions asked in cross to be approved by the judge-analog and reducing contact between accuser and accused is specifically why the questions are actually asked by the lawyer or faculty advisor representing the accused.
I’d ask you again: In your ideal world, what would the process look like? Start from when it’s reported (unless you don’t think it should need to be reported, in which I want to know how the school is supposed to know) and go all the way through to a finding and punishment. What should it look like were the process fair, according to you?
So you’re otherwise OK with the DeVos process, so long as no one has an actual lawyer present?
The reason there’s an option for a lawyer present for the accused is specifically so they can have someone who both understands what the process is supposed to look like and also is specifically there to support their defense and enforce their rights and can be trusted that that is their top priority. You could do this with a faculty advisor (and under the DeVos rules you are assigned one if you don’t have a lawyer), but since such an advisor would be trained and supplied by the school you’d have to be very careful to avoid allowing the school to appoint someone insufficiently trained, incompetent, or actually opposed to you having a thorough and vigorous defense in order to avoid biasing the process.
But lawyers aside, there are a bunch of questions and details that have been challenged (with varying degrees of success) under the “Dear Colleague” rules. For example:
Should the accused be told what they are being accused of before the hearing? If yes, how long before?
Should they have access to the evidence being brought against them before the hearing, in order to prepare a defense? If yes, how long before?
Should the school be allowed to engage in punitive action against the accused before any decision is made?
Should the accused have access to documentation regarding what the process is supposed to look like and what rights they have, and does this include materials to train faculty regarding the process?
Should testimony from the accuser be delivered at the hearing, or should they be allowed to provide a written statement? If the latter, how much time should they be allowed to go over and refine that statement before submission?
Should testimony from the accuser be subject to questioning? If yes, should they be required to answer those questions on the spot, or should they be allowed some amount of time to draft a response that allows them to produce the strongest possible response (aka be able to do things like consider how any answer might contradict their previous statement/other evidence)? If the latter, how much time?
5 and 6, but for the accused?
Should either party be able to bring in third party witnesses, and what are the edges and limits of that?
How should contradictions or outright lies by the accuser be considered? For example, the training materials Ole Miss used for its faculty said to treat any lies or contradictions by the accuser as a side effect of trauma and not as indication of anything else. This means any lies the accuser is caught in are considered not to effect her credibility at all, while any inconsistency in the story of the accused is evidence against the accused.
When should Title IX even apply? For example, imagine a scenario where an incident between two students is alleged not on school property, not during school hours, and not during an event ran, authorized or promoted by the school. The only connection between the incident and the school is that both of those involved are students - does Title IX apply?
What should be necessary to start an investigation? Should the alleged victim have to report it? To who? Should a teacher hearing a rumor about it in passing from a third party in the hallway be sufficient to mandate investigation? Where are the edges of this?
If someone makes an accusation, does that free the accuser from being held responsible for other disciplinary infractions? Essentially is making a Title IX accusation a get-out-of-consequeces-free card for other rulebreaking? If yes, for how long and for what?
Hell, at a more basic level should the process even be fair to the accused at all? Do they really need any rights or ability to defend themselves?Why not just punish in response to any accusation?
A male student accuses a female student of sexually assaulting him. In response to hearing the accusation, she accuses him of sexually assaulting her in turn. How do you resolve this?
Between the hundreds of lawsuits challenging Title IX procedures since the “Dear Colleague” letter and the differences between that policy and the DeVos policy all of those have come up.
That’s not very many words to answer what you think policy should actually look like.
I suspect (but cannot prove) it’s because your ideal version of policy would look something like “if any woman accuses a man, he’s pulled in and questioned and if he can’t prove he didn’t do it beyond even the tiniest doubt on the spot he’s expelled.” With the gendering there being explicit, because I suspect you only even think about scenarios where it’s a girl/woman accusing a boy/man.
You refuse to engage with the question of what the policy should look like except to describe any time the topic of the accused defending themselves is mentioned as some variation of “letting rich men get away with it”. I’m not sure what other conclusion I’m supposed to arrive at?
You yourself throughout the thread has always described the accuser as a girl and the accused as a man, you describe any mention of the accused mounting a defense as letting rich men get away with it and refuse to say anything about what policy should look like other than that the accused should not be allowed to have a lawyer.
…but no one tries to use them when calculating conviction rates, because they’re vague estimates rather than any kind of hard number and everyone properly understands in every other case that law enforcement can’t even hypothetically do anything about an unreported crime.
Are you college aged or older? Do you have student loans? Now, imagine you have all those student loans, but you have no degree and a dramatically harder time moving to another school (for which you’d have to take out further student loans if you manage to get in) because the previous school says why you were expelled when asked.
If it were just “go to another school” with that being the full extent of the consequences, that would be one thing but it’s really not.
Also, under the Devos rules supporting actions can be taken to make things easier for the accuser in response to the accusation alone (before any hearing, finding or even investigation), but those actions cannot be unreasonable, punitive or deny access to education (for example changing class schedules for one or both, changing housing assignments, or other things to prevent contact between them).
So, no one can question or challenge any part of an accusation in any way? Or do you have some (likely media fueled) image in your mind that the guidelines allow for the accused or his lawyer to grill the accuser, shouting irrelevant questions at her until she breaks down and submits? Because what the Devos guidelines actually call for for cross-examination is that all questions have to be submitted to the judge-analog (typically Title IX coordinator, but can be delegated) who is supposed to decide if the question is relevant or not to the accusation and the question can only be asked if it’s approved. If she’s a slutty slut slut is unlikely to be considered relevant, as is what she was wearing unless an article of clothing is somehow central to the evidence.
Question: In your ideal world, what would the process look like? Start from when it’s reported (unless you don’t think it should need to be reported, in which I want to know how the school is supposed to know) and go all the way through to a finding and punishment.
There’s no need for that kind of language under any circumstances.
But that is in no uncertain terms what you mean by victim-shaming and I’m actively avoiding dancing around it. That is precisely the kind of question the Devos 2018 guidelines are specifically meant to avoid by requiring any questions asked in cross to be approved by the judge-analog and reducing contact between accuser and accused is specifically why the questions are actually asked by the lawyer or faculty advisor representing the accused.
I’d ask you again: In your ideal world, what would the process look like? Start from when it’s reported (unless you don’t think it should need to be reported, in which I want to know how the school is supposed to know) and go all the way through to a finding and punishment. What should it look like were the process fair, according to you?
No lawyers. School management. Done.
So you’re otherwise OK with the DeVos process, so long as no one has an actual lawyer present?
The reason there’s an option for a lawyer present for the accused is specifically so they can have someone who both understands what the process is supposed to look like and also is specifically there to support their defense and enforce their rights and can be trusted that that is their top priority. You could do this with a faculty advisor (and under the DeVos rules you are assigned one if you don’t have a lawyer), but since such an advisor would be trained and supplied by the school you’d have to be very careful to avoid allowing the school to appoint someone insufficiently trained, incompetent, or actually opposed to you having a thorough and vigorous defense in order to avoid biasing the process.
But lawyers aside, there are a bunch of questions and details that have been challenged (with varying degrees of success) under the “Dear Colleague” rules. For example:
Between the hundreds of lawsuits challenging Title IX procedures since the “Dear Colleague” letter and the differences between that policy and the DeVos policy all of those have come up.
That’s an awful lot of words for you want rich perpetrators to be able to get away with rape without even getting expelled from school.
That’s not very many words to answer what you think policy should actually look like.
I suspect (but cannot prove) it’s because your ideal version of policy would look something like “if any woman accuses a man, he’s pulled in and questioned and if he can’t prove he didn’t do it beyond even the tiniest doubt on the spot he’s expelled.” With the gendering there being explicit, because I suspect you only even think about scenarios where it’s a girl/woman accusing a boy/man.
I don’t think I’ve seen a clearer case of amyone making a straw man argument tham this right here. Wow.
You refuse to engage with the question of what the policy should look like except to describe any time the topic of the accused defending themselves is mentioned as some variation of “letting rich men get away with it”. I’m not sure what other conclusion I’m supposed to arrive at?
You yourself throughout the thread has always described the accuser as a girl and the accused as a man, you describe any mention of the accused mounting a defense as letting rich men get away with it and refuse to say anything about what policy should look like other than that the accused should not be allowed to have a lawyer.